EMMA, FERGIE AND JIMMY
an outbreak of privacy-intrusion in a monthly glossy
INTRUSION into privacy, the worst single failing of the British press, is not alas confined to the tabloids. As I have com- plained in this column, some quality papers from time to time run unpleasant (and habitually inaccurate) gossip columns of an intrusive kind. They have largely vanished in the last year or two, I'm glad to note, probably because they attract too many writs. Among the tabloids, as has been widely reported, there has been a deliber- ate effort recently to reduce privacy viola- tion, in response to public and parliamen- tary concern. But the disease continues to break out here and there, sometimes in unexpected places. Like many other peo- ple (I gather), I was shocked to read the repellent article by Simon Blow on the Tennant family, which The Spectator pub- lished on 13 January. But for the Spectator to do such a thing is an aberration. For certain other magazines, invading private life is a policy. The Tatter has become an egregious example.
The original Tatter, a thrice-weekly, was founded by Richard Steele in 1709 to provide 'Accounts of Gallantry, Pleasure and Entertainment', plus poetry and 'for- eign and domestic news'. Gradually it became more high-minded, denouncing gambling and duelling, and endeavouring to inculcate good taste. In a more modern incarnation it consisted chiefly of formal photos of society functions, listing consci- entiously all the people who attended them. Such old-established magazines, performing a role for which there is no longer much demand, pose almost insuper- able problems for publishers. Should they be killed outright, thus throwing away a valuable title? Or transformed, risking accusations of ruining a famous institution'? If you do the second, should the process be abrupt or gradual? Publishers rarely get it right and often spend fortunes getting it wrong. The case of Punch has baffled relays of doctors ever since I can remem- ber; amazing, really, that it remains gruesomely alive. With the Tatter the obvious solution, pushing it into the smartyboots fashions-and-social-trends category, has been complicated by the fact that market leadership is held by Harpers awl Queen, itself an amalgam of face-lifted old-stagers. The revamped Tatter has never really looked secure, though it had a moment of glory (1979-83) under the cun- ning Tina Brown, before she went off to New York to rescue a similarly ailing veteran, Vanity Fair. Lately, under Emma Soames, it has resorted, rather desperate- ly, to shock tactics, ranging from blas- phemy to intrusive profiles. The February issue contains two such, on the DucheSs of York and Jimmy Gold- smith, much of the latter being devoted to his wife. Neither has any obvious merit, being scissors-and-paste jobs, thOugh both are written in a knowing insider's tone and make much of quotes from anonymous 'friends'. Both are far too long and duty alone kept me trudging to the end. Apart from their length, and the use of what used to he called 'seven-and-sixpenny words', both could have graced the pages of the Sun. In this kind of journalism, indeed, there is a large element of cross-class cannibalism. Much of what makes the piece about the Duchess of York so offen- sive — it has been reported that it reduced her father to tears — is that it simply crams together the various insulting phrases used about her in the low-grade tabloids. Thus it tells Tatter readers, who otherwise never see the thing, how the Sunday Sport celebrated her 30th birthday. (In case Spectator readers wish to know, it was by publishing 'a diagram showing which por- tions of the royal anatomy were over- meaty' under the title 'Duchess of Pork'.) There were other quotes from the Mur- doch tabloids, from the Canadian gutter press and even from what was yelled out at the poor woman, while she was visiting a maternity ward, from the barred windows of nearby Wormwood Scrubs — phrases too disgusting for this journal but evidently acceptable to Tatter readers. All this draw- ing together of filth was made more offen, sive by the contrived note of intimacy, the impression conveyed that the writer was privy to the views of the Duchess's circle, and most of all by humbugging praise (`She is honest, kindly; good-humoured and affectionate'), seeking to con readers into thinking the profile fair-minded, written more in sorrow than anger.
I am not impressed by the argument, produced in defence of physical abuse of royalty; that the Prince Regent had to put up with the same kind of thing circa 1812. To begin with, he disposed of considerable political power and was a bUrden on the public purse at a time when millions were in dire poverty. Moreover, those who attacked him could be, and often were, sent to prison for criminal libel. The Duchess of York has no such protection. But at least she is some kind of public person, since the Yorks are on the civil list. Jimmy Goldsmith does not hold public office or stand for it. As a businessman, his activities are of legitimate public interest and rightly receive close scrutiny by the press and by the financial authorities. But his private life, except when he chooses to make it public knowledge, is no One else's concern, and this applies a fortiori to his wife's. The Tatter profile was a gross intrusion into both.
Emma Soames's pugnacious approach to glossy journalism has not gone un- punished. Last week, for instance, the Daily • Mail exposed her private life to similar, treatment ('We turn the tables on venomous Emma'). But employing techni- ques which, by definition, you regard as reprehensible is surely not the way to curb journalistic misdemeanours. In any case, is it right to regard an editor under pressure to raise sales and reduce losses as the sole culprit? The Tatter is owned by Conde Nast Publications and the masthead lists its chairman as Daniel Salem and its manag- ing director as Richard S. Hill. Should their private lives be exposed? No: the remedy, sorely, is to bring Soames, Salem, Hill and anyone else responsible for the publication of intrusive material, be it in print or on the air, within the ambit of one universal law, which makes the privacy of all of us, including royalty and the rich and powerful, a form of property which the media invades at its peril. That is the only responsible solution for a society under the rule of law.
Previous page
